User talk:DanTD/Archive. March - April 2013
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:DanTD. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
.jpg)){kind=link}
Long Mountain Parkway marker
The Long Mountain Parkway marker is currently licensed as a fair use image, meaning it cannot be used on any articles other than US 6 in New York. As such, {{jct}} has been coded to not show the marker. – TMF (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ugh, that sucks! I just reverted my edits. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- You may want to consult with some of the more legal-savvy editors, as the marker might actually be public domain for one of two reasons: it could be ineligible for copyright due to simplicity, or if the marker was used prior to 1977 and never registered for copyright. – TMF (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- I guess I should look into that. Honestly, I've rarely seen the sign outside of the early-1970's Sunoco/DX Metropolitan New York map, and I forgot who published that one. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- You may want to consult with some of the more legal-savvy editors, as the marker might actually be public domain for one of two reasons: it could be ineligible for copyright due to simplicity, or if the marker was used prior to 1977 and never registered for copyright. – TMF (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
TWA Flight 800 Revisionism
DanTD,
On TWA 800 you may remember questioning the 'across Long Island Sound' reference.
They made a mistake. Change that to 'across Great Soutn Bay' and greatly reduce the number of witnesses to about 10 and you will be correct.
That was a reference to the horizontal subsonic missile/drone.
The 'hundreds' mostly witnessed the vertically launched supersonic anti-aircraft missiles (two of them).
Greg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.189.205 (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- The thing is, Greg, that person in that unsolved mysteries segment specifically said it was from the Long Island Sound. The Great South Bay isn't deep enough to handle too many naval vessels. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Teddy Pendergrass; Heaven Only Knows (Album cover).jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Teddy Pendergrass; Heaven Only Knows (Album cover).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Bannered routes
I noticed that you are making a Bannered routes of U.S. Route 441 page in your sandbox. I have been attempting to totally reformat the List of bannered U.S. Routes page on my sandbox. Is there any way that either of us can help the other with our respective projects? Thanks. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia Meetup NYC this Sunday April 14
Hi DanTD! You're invited to our next meeting for Wikipedia Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.
Please sign up, and add your ideas to the agenda for Sunday. Thanks!
Delivered on behalf of User:Pharos, 17:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
lack of significant coverage
I see the lack of significant coverage by third party sources in the fact that the only thing sourced to a third party is a star rating. Where exactly do you see ANY coverage by third party reliable sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- if you are looking at the version that you have multiply times restored [1] There is not a single god damned piece of source information except the star rating and the alternate name of the album being sourced to the bands website, which is not a third party reliable source. You will take note that it is a REQUIREMENT that any content restored is appropriately sourced with inline citations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- citing the band for alternate names they have used for the album is perfectly fine, BUT it is NOT third party OR significant.
- The issue is that THAT IS THE ONLY CONTENT THAT HAS A SOURCE other than the star rating.
- I dont know how i can make the point any clearer or why you are having such a hard time with that basic fact and how policy applies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- and NO, first albums are NOT inherently notable because they are first albums. they still require significant coverage by third party sources-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Please stop adding unsourced content as you did in this edit This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- There is only 1 piece of information in the body which is footnoted, and so, yes, you did add unsourced content to the article. You need to provide inline citations for every piece of challenge information.. And calling other editors names as you did here is also not allowed. Repeated personal attacks will get you blocked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, I didn't, you lying sack of shit! There are plenty of other editors who added material to this article, and from what I've seen of your activities, it's you that should be facing the threat of being blocked! -------User:DanTD (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- it is quite clear that you, and you alone, restored all this material without providing a source. I see that you are now adding links to other websites, but you need to only link to reliably published sources -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, what's clear is that you didn't pay attention to the goddamn edit history of the article, and you don't know what the hell you're talking about!! --~!-----User:DanTD (talk)
- frank who? and you need to read the policies. it does not matter who may have entered the unsourced content in the first place, when you make an edit to restore content you are responsible for providing the appropriate sourcing as well. books.google.com and news.google.com are good places to look for the necessary reliable sources. just plain googling is not.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, what's clear is that you didn't pay attention to the goddamn edit history of the article, and you don't know what the hell you're talking about!! --~!-----User:DanTD (talk)
- it is quite clear that you, and you alone, restored all this material without providing a source. I see that you are now adding links to other websites, but you need to only link to reliably published sources -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, I didn't, you lying sack of shit! There are plenty of other editors who added material to this article, and from what I've seen of your activities, it's you that should be facing the threat of being blocked! -------User:DanTD (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- DanTD, you need to seriously calm down on the language. Please, keep WP:CIVIL in mind. Calling people "lying sacks of shit" is unallowed per policy and can come to block. Can I suggest both of you take the night off and revisit this on a project page or something? It's a lot more effective than resorting to this. Clearly a third opinion is needed and should be taken. Mitch32(It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.) 03:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Mitch, perhaps you'd like to examine TheRedPenOfDoom's persistent spree of redirecting every article that doesn't interest him. I'm not the only person complaining about him -------User:DanTD (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- I understand, but WP:CIVIL is not a policy you should violate. By going like that to him, you're not making any actions on either side look better. Mitch32(It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.) 03:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Time for an RFC on RedPen, I think. This is typical of his behaviour across every article he's involved with. Enough's enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Trouser press
while trouser press is reliable for content about music, the source that you have supplied does not have significant coverage about the subject of the article (it merely mentions that a song appears on that album) and in particular does not support the claims that you have used it to footnote. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- You obviously didn't read it carefully, because it reveals the songs and other sound bytes that were sampled. -------User:DanTD (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- the source "the sampling is funny, too, with everyone from LL Cool J to Nat "King" Cole " - the article as you have restored it "The track "There Is No Love Between Us Anymore" samples the songs "When I Fall In Love" by Nat King Cole, and "You've Lost That Loving Feeling" by The Righteous Brothers. Their better-known track "Hit the Hi-Tech Groove" not only samples the techno-disco song "Respectable" by Mel & Kim, as well as the Whistle song "Just Buggin'," but defiantly boasts that the band steals (though they actually sample) as many varieties of sounds that they can get to make their music, ranging from other people's songs to television soundbites." You cannot go from what is in the source to what you have entered into the article without jumping through massive amounts of you personal interpretation and a lot of promotional hyperbole. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- This isn't simply personal interpretation. The very lyrics of "Hit the Hi-Tech Groove" openly say so, and "Def Con One" contains one of Rod Serling's "Twilight Zone" narrations. I'm seriously convinced you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, and I may have to send you some links personally. -------User:DanTD (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- i am convinced that you do not have a reliably published source that supports the content you wish to include in the article without requiring the application of personal knowledge to fill in claims not specifically made by the source. It is simple policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- And it's clear that you've just reaffirmed that you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and only want to redirect this because you have no interest in the subject. I've seen some useful redirects by you, but this is clearly one of the bad ones. -------User:DanTD (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, I want to redirect it because now it fails the basic criteria for having a stand alone article: significant coverage about the subject by third party sources.
- and yes I think that listening to a song and saying "hey that comes from X" is EXACTLY what constitutes original research and is not allowed BY POLICY to be entered as article content whether or not it is "true". Please spend some time actually reading and trying to understand policy rather than attacking other editors and making assumptions about their motives. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just keep digging your own grave, RedPen. You clearly have no sense of 20th Century culture whatsoever if you think this is original research. And there are reliable third party sources, even if you don't like them. As far as personal attacks go, your bewilderment over the mention of Frank Zappa, Rod Serling, and others leads me to think that your actions are based on youth and/or ignorance. I don't know what the hell else to think. -------User:DanTD (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- 1) to edit wikipedia, my own personal understanding of anything doesnt matter a hill of beans. what matters is what is verifiable as having been published in a third party reliable source and whether the content I (or you) add is supported by those sources. 2) If there are third party sources, YOU haven't provided them AS YOU ARE REQUIRED TO before you restore content. Your complete disregard or misunderstanding of basic content policy is actually digging your hole deeper and deeper. Find and provide reliably published sources that support ALL of the content without requiring interpretation or analysis that is not expressly presented in the source if you cannot, then you cannot restore content that has been challenged. Period. it is that simple.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- If your personal understanding of something doesn't matter, then your false claims of OR have no validity. And you're still lying about the sources, because I HAVE provided them, and you refuse to face them for what they are. Your rampant effort to redirect and delete EVERYTHING is what shows that it's you who's digging yourself into a hole, not me. -------User:DanTD (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- it doesnt require any personal knowledge to read what you put in the article, read the source you provided and see that the source does not fully support the article content. you have provided some links, but not to reliably published sources that cover the subject in a significant manner nor that fully support the content in the article that you attribute to them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, but it does require a high level of arrogance, disinterest, and belligerence to make false accusations about articles having original research and not having reliable sources. Ignorance helps too. When I posted those videos to you, I never suggested using them as sources. I merely showed them to you convince you that the edits themselves were credible. -------User:DanTD (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- There are NO false accusations on my part. Read WP:OR. Placing content into articles where there are claims and analysis in the article that are not directly supported by the sources IS original research. That is what you were doing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- There are NOTHING BUT false accusations from you!! -------User:DanTD (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I hate to butt into a conversation in which I have no business, but the levels of hostility here are seriously starting to bother me. Neither of you guys are being civil, just going back and forth in a shouting war. It's nice to see the language has diminished a bit, but you guys need to calm down. TCN7JM 01:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- There are NO false accusations on my part. Read WP:OR. Placing content into articles where there are claims and analysis in the article that are not directly supported by the sources IS original research. That is what you were doing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, but it does require a high level of arrogance, disinterest, and belligerence to make false accusations about articles having original research and not having reliable sources. Ignorance helps too. When I posted those videos to you, I never suggested using them as sources. I merely showed them to you convince you that the edits themselves were credible. -------User:DanTD (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- it doesnt require any personal knowledge to read what you put in the article, read the source you provided and see that the source does not fully support the article content. you have provided some links, but not to reliably published sources that cover the subject in a significant manner nor that fully support the content in the article that you attribute to them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- If your personal understanding of something doesn't matter, then your false claims of OR have no validity. And you're still lying about the sources, because I HAVE provided them, and you refuse to face them for what they are. Your rampant effort to redirect and delete EVERYTHING is what shows that it's you who's digging yourself into a hole, not me. -------User:DanTD (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- 1) to edit wikipedia, my own personal understanding of anything doesnt matter a hill of beans. what matters is what is verifiable as having been published in a third party reliable source and whether the content I (or you) add is supported by those sources. 2) If there are third party sources, YOU haven't provided them AS YOU ARE REQUIRED TO before you restore content. Your complete disregard or misunderstanding of basic content policy is actually digging your hole deeper and deeper. Find and provide reliably published sources that support ALL of the content without requiring interpretation or analysis that is not expressly presented in the source if you cannot, then you cannot restore content that has been challenged. Period. it is that simple.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just keep digging your own grave, RedPen. You clearly have no sense of 20th Century culture whatsoever if you think this is original research. And there are reliable third party sources, even if you don't like them. As far as personal attacks go, your bewilderment over the mention of Frank Zappa, Rod Serling, and others leads me to think that your actions are based on youth and/or ignorance. I don't know what the hell else to think. -------User:DanTD (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- And it's clear that you've just reaffirmed that you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and only want to redirect this because you have no interest in the subject. I've seen some useful redirects by you, but this is clearly one of the bad ones. -------User:DanTD (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- i am convinced that you do not have a reliably published source that supports the content you wish to include in the article without requiring the application of personal knowledge to fill in claims not specifically made by the source. It is simple policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- This isn't simply personal interpretation. The very lyrics of "Hit the Hi-Tech Groove" openly say so, and "Def Con One" contains one of Rod Serling's "Twilight Zone" narrations. I'm seriously convinced you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, and I may have to send you some links personally. -------User:DanTD (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- the source "the sampling is funny, too, with everyone from LL Cool J to Nat "King" Cole " - the article as you have restored it "The track "There Is No Love Between Us Anymore" samples the songs "When I Fall In Love" by Nat King Cole, and "You've Lost That Loving Feeling" by The Righteous Brothers. Their better-known track "Hit the Hi-Tech Groove" not only samples the techno-disco song "Respectable" by Mel & Kim, as well as the Whistle song "Just Buggin'," but defiantly boasts that the band steals (though they actually sample) as many varieties of sounds that they can get to make their music, ranging from other people's songs to television soundbites." You cannot go from what is in the source to what you have entered into the article without jumping through massive amounts of you personal interpretation and a lot of promotional hyperbole. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Google News Archive search. I seem to have turned up five sources, all from notable, mainstream news sources. They are all pay-per-view, so you will have to drop your own quarters in the till. (LOL) Gamweb (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Gamweb, could you also send this info to the talk page of the article? -------User:DanTD (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Gamweb (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Florida State Road 444 Proposed for Deletion
I noticed this today: Florida State Road 444. Gamweb (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I seem to have found something in a Google News Archive search pointing to the Ocala Star Banner, but when I attempt to pull up the link, I can't find the info on the page. Maybe you could give it a try? Gamweb (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The Center Line: Spring 2013
 | ||
| Volume 6, Issue 2 • Spring 2013 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
| Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS | ||